Which, when creating laws, is countered by the more populous states having more representatives in the house.

I (?and @pfury?) are talking about the influence enjoyed by individual citizens, not states. And given the advantages they enjoy in the EC and the Senate, it is clear (to me) that citizens of less-populous states have greater representation than do citizens of more-populous states.

Which again is counteracted by the fact that individual citizens, of more populous states, have greater representation in the House.

In terms of the electoral college, sure, small states have greater representation in terms of how much their EC vote counts (I guess, their EC voted might be weighted, but they get less), but all that means is candidates have to engage the populations of smaller states. I don’t see that as a bad thing in general.

In terms of the Senate, the only real argument I can see is when it comes to confirmations, but, as far as I know, all Senate races are won via a state popular vote (could be wrong) so if Dems (for example) win more senatorial elections than what does it even matter? It probably helps the minority party more anyway.

I guess you could look at it that way. I look at it more like, every state has the same power in the Senate because in federalism every state is supposed to have equal say in how the United States is run. It just so happens that some states have lower populations so if you look at it from that perspective than sure the individuals in more populace states have less say in the Senate.

In regards to the Oval, less populated states have slightly more sway in who reaches the oval office. They have very little sway in how that person will run the country.

pfury:

I think a system that makes a very large chunk of voters useless is a bad thing in general.

I’m not really sure how else to do it. A straight popular vote does essentially the same thing.

California got 55 EC votes (10.22% of total EC votes) having a population that’s roughly 12.3% of the US population. It’s not like they got hosed…

EyeDentist:

I don’t understand what you mean here.

I can see an argument that states with larger population should get a greater say in who is appointed/confirmed to cabinet positions/courts, which is not the case with Alaska and California having the same number of Senators.

EyeDentist:

What does it matter who controls the Senate?

That isn’t what I said.

I wrote:

usmccds423:

…all Senate races are won via a state popular vote (could be wrong) so if Dems (for example) win more senatorial elections than what does it even matter? It probably helps the minority party more anyway.

Meaning, the popular vote already determines who is in the Senate anyway so what does it even matter if Alaska and California have the same number of Senators? Just win local elections and crazy enough you’ll have more seats.

pfury:

I think it would be interesting to see what happens to voter turnout in a national election when your vote matters just as much as the next guy.

People don’t really turn out in mid-terms where their vote equals the same as everyone else in their state so why would it be any different for national elections?

Are you of the opinion that the average American doesn’t value a POTUS election more than the midterms? If so, Trecos graph above has some news for you

No, my opinion is the opposite. People don’t really turn out when it’s a straight popular vote so why would turnout change if the POTUS election changed to a popular vote? I think the graph would remain the same. I doubt people abstain from voting because of the electoral college.

Apologies, I mispoke with 4x. Turns out the low states it’s only 3.4-3.6ish

Edit: And a point to note. As time goes on, and low pop states continue to bleed citizenry and large states continue to grow, the inequality grows with it. What’s the breaking point? When Wyoming citizen’s vote is 10x as powerful as a Californian, will we still go ‘BUT FEDERALISM’

usmccds423:

People don’t really turn out when it’s a straight popular vote so why would turnout change if the POTUS election changed to a popular vote?

Because their vote for POTUS may no longer be a complete waste? Being able to actually contribute is very motivating.

usmccds423:

Straight popular vote is just mob rule. If you aren’t part of the mob your vote is worthless

How ghastly. A nation with officials elected by the people. I shudder at the thought

Meaning, the popular vote already determines who is in the Senate anyway so what does it even matter if Alaska and California have the same number of Senators?

The popular vote mos def doesn’t determine who controls the Senate, which is the outcome that matters. As of 2016, IIRC the 49 Senate D’s (and I’s who caucus with Dems) had received 5-6M more votes than the 51 R’s who control the Senate.

Meaning, the popular vote already determines who is in the Senate anyway so what does it even matter if Alaska and California have the same number of Senators?

The popular vote mos def doesn’t determine who controls the Senate, which is the outcome that matters. As of 2016, IIRC the 49 Senate D’s (and I’s who caucus with Dems) had received 5-6M more votes than the 51 R’s who control the Senate.

That doesn’t surprise me as the largest state is blue every year…

The popular vote within a state wins Senate seats. Convince people in red states dem policies are better and win more elections.

Ya, we have such a strong history of great outcomes when one group of people “governs” everyone

As opposed to now where one group of people governs everyone in a national election?

usmccds423:

I’m sure minorities will be thrilled at your, lol.

The lol was directed at how that criticism of a popular vote model is absolutely also true of an EC model. That’s how voting always works. Your vote was useless if you lose.

The argumentative in me would say that even if you lose, your vote is a demonstration to pols how far they can sway before being reeled in, but realistically, you lost if your guy doesn’t win, regardless of the voting type.